When is a penalty not a penalty?

You'll be sent to Nebraska

Absolutely not. I refuse to fly unless it's unavoidable - or unless there's some sex at the other end

Best of luck. If you haven't already done so, I suppose it can't hurt to drop Blondin a note pointing out that he and his colleagues in the Resi team don't seem to be singing off the same hymnsheet (again) and asking him to have a word with them. Don't know how much good it will do, but it can't hurt.

Phil, you can browse the SL Incident Report Repository here: http://www.gridsurvey.com/blotter.php?page=1 . The Suppository () lists infractions and penalties going all the way back to 2007 so you should be able to see your heinous crime listed if you were, in fact, suspended.

And BTW - you're a very naughty boy.

The Incident Report / Police Blotter is not a comprehensive record.
Last month, I got a warning arising as collateral damage from some griefer nonsense that happened while I was sound asleep in my RL bed. At least one other neighbour got the same warning. We both had prims slightly overhanging Linden land by the SLRR.

I put in appeal ticket. LL reversed the decision and the warning was removed from my spotless record.
That took a few days, but in the meantime there was no sign of these on the Incident Reports.


ETA:
The incident took place on October 15th.
According to the Incident Reports there were only 6 incidents from October 11 through October 17.
C'mon!!

The one on the website isn't, because they only hsow the 25 most recent, but I assumed the page I mentioned was complete. Of course if it's just an archive of what appeared on the website, then, no, it won't be complete.

I much prefer the name Police Blotter.

But the OP is still a very naughty boy.

I did think of getting in touch with Blondin, Innula, and I also thought of getting in touch with Mark Kingdon. I pay $200 a month to LL for their service and I expect reasonable customer service from them. I always get excellent customer service from the help team and others, but this time I'm not getting it. In fact, I was ignored - closing the first ticket without any message to me of any kind was like the employee turning his back and walking away when a customer asks him something reasonable. I don't appreciate that at all. But what's worse is that the anonymous person who issued the warning didn't even go to find out what was actually there and the person who dealt with the ticket appeal merely rubber stamped the anonymous one's decision, without checking anything. In other words, none of them who have had anything to do with it know what was actually there - either before or after I removed the models. That's not what I expect for being a $200/month customer.

Btw, what exactly is Blondin? What's his job?

That may be so, but we're talking about my store models here

ooOOoo. The second appeal has become a "work in progress" instead of the penalty merely being rubber stamped without anyone examining anything, as happened with the first appeal. Of course, it could be just a ploy to make it appear as though the thing is being examined when it isn't, before the rubber stamp comes out again. Even so, it does have the appearance of looking promising - and that someone is actually going to look at what Blondin said - maybe even confer with him - and what my models were. At least I'm beginning to feel a bit hopeful that the actual circumstances will be considered this time.

What is Blondin? /me tries to refrain from silly jokes, particularly since this is a pg forum.

I don't pretend to understand the management structure at LL, if, indeed, they have one in any conventional sense, and I am not sure they do. Whatever it is, I don't think Blondin is particularly high up in it and he certainly doesn't seem always to be in the loop. He's several times told us stuff's going to happen and then come back and said, oops, plans have changed (e.g. he was telling us for weeks the 1.23 viewer would be made mandatory).

His job seems to be liaising with various mainland groups, particularly those of us affected by the Zindra move (which is how I know him). Because of this, he's the Linden who most often comments on Adult/Mature/PG issues, though he's nothing -- as far as I know -- to do with the Resi Team, who enforce the rules.

I am never that sure when Blondin says something if it's an official interpretation of the rules or just his best attempt to tell us what he thinks the rules mean. But he's so consistently said that selling sex beds on Mature is OK so long as you stick to the rules in advertising them, and equally consistently said that demoing them is OK so long as people keep their clothes on, that I'm pretty sure that's as close to an official statement as we're going to get.

Thank you, Innula. I asked because I put it to them, in the second appeal, that a person should not be penalised for doing something that Blondin said is ok to do. I'll wait the outcome of the appeal before I try higher up.

I hope they do overturn it Phil..
I think you and a bunch of other people may have been bitten by some of those brown bag meetings and blondin saying one thing while the rules saying another..

So i hope they fix this for you

Blondin is a shill, a stalking horse, and is demonstrably a liar.

His usual reply to a question is "I'll look into that".

I have always maintained that Blondin's assurances in the forum discussions and office hours discussions surrounding the adult content policy would have zero weight when it came down to the crunch. This is the first test of that.

Phil, I hope that I am wrong.

The best I can gather from the Wiki is that he is a mainland liaison of some kind... A mainland community manager, perhaps?

This. He's responsible for the Welcome Areas, Infohubs, and acts as a liaison to some of the broader community groups. (^_^)

He was also the key whipping-boy for the Zindra move. (^_^)y

I hope the appeal does get a real response. I just bet it will be something like, "The Linden employee we appointed to speak for the company regarding Adult policy does not speak for the company regarding the Adult policy."

My take on these quotes (which I haven't requoted) is that it's ok for the customer to demo the beds, but that's not the same thing as having bots demoing it continuously. I'm not sure if that's what the bots were doing, but if it is, I could understand LL choosing to distinguish between occasional use by customers and full time use by bots, clothes or no clothes. ("Understand" means understand, not agree with.)

Nevertheless, the entire handling of the incident is one more illustration of the broken process LL uses to handle ARs. Insufficient analysis, insufficient info provided to the alleged offender, insufficient time spent responding to inquiries, inadequate documentation of the rules.

Kidd:
There is very little difference between customers doing it and the bots/models doing it. The small difference that there is, is that the bots, and anyone on with them, stand up after 30 seconds of an animation, whereas customers may keep on and on (I did about 30 minutes on one couple anim at Bits 'n' Bobs once ) In other words, the bots only do anything when a customer wants to see the anims - just like a customer doing it when s/he wants to see the anims. The bots are actually better from an adult policy point of view.

I agree that Blondin's statements were specifically about customers, but they were specific enough to say that demoing is acceptable as long as the avs are clothed. My models only demoed with and for customers, and are always standing up the rest of the time, which was almost all of the time. I honestly can't see that there is a significant difference.

Ceka:
Thank you I'm not really bothered about the models, although they would be better for customers. It's the potential that a disciplinary action against me might be painful if LL introduce a creator acreditation scheme as has been talked about. So I do want it removed from my record - it's why I'm continuing with it. I'd like the models back too, of course.

Lindal:
Even if you are wrong about Blondin, it doesn't make any difference. He is a Linden who has been, and is, involved with the Adult policy, even if it's just as a mouthpiece. LL should not penalise someone for doing what he said is ok, even if an interpretation of the policy says it's not ok. On this sort of detail, there is nothing written in the ToS or CS. It's all down to interpretation so, if the Linden mouthpiece says it's ok, but it's not, someone who does it should be told that it's not and not be officially penalised for it. If s/he doesn't change it, then penalise them.

I misunderstood. I thought you kicked the customers off after 30 seconds, but the bots kept going and going and going.

Well that is the most important thing is your record..
I mean you have blondin himself quoting you and saying to you in so many words that it was ok..

If that doesn't get you out of an AR nothing will...
Send them to the page where he quoted you..

He just greyed up the definitions when he started acting like it was only about the search..

if it was only about the search then it wouldn't matter if your customers had clothes on or not when they tested your beds LOL..

Well again..i hope they let you off..if you ask me you have proof enough on their own forum with a linden guiding you..

Neither of those

The beds don't know who or what is on the balls so customers and bots are the same, excpet that it's only customers who can operate the beds - to see what they want to see. The bots are totally passive.

If an animation doesn't change by 30 seconds after it starts, then the bed moves the balls, and who/whever is on them, to the Stand position. The agents are still on the balls, but they are standing. People can't leave the bots to be at it. They can go away with the bots still at it, but when that animation hasn't changed by 30 seconds after it start, they stand up.

I used to have the beds set to do that after 5 minutes, because I really didn't want bots at it in there all day, just because a customer didn't stad them up when leaving - and there's no reason why customers should do that. But when the Adult policy came in, I changed it to 30 seconds.

ETA:
I think I misunderstood your reply But it's all spelled out now, anyway.

Face it, anyone whos surname is Linden is a liar and is paid to do so. (And not very well I'd bet)

Result!

Muchos kudos to the Linden who actually looked at it I'm not saying who, but it was signed.

Fantastic! I'm really pleased for you, well done for persevering.

Thank you spinster.

And thank you to everyone in this thread who voiced support. It was really appreciated. When I started the thread, I wondered if I'd get posts like, "Yeah but they're bots - ban 'em all!"